41–50 of 92 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is that mind blowing?
Because the pool of male engineers is ~4-8x larger than female candidates, so hiring 50% women is intentionally hiring worse employees because of their genitals.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the bigger problem here is 50% for women. Mind blowing.
Why is that mind blowing?
In my university not too long ago, my classes were maybe 14% women? May have been slightly more in others, but I remember counting at one point
We need to stop accusing companies of being sexist, they are bending over backwards to try to be the ones who get closer to 50%, which reduces the available female talent pool for other companies.
All these sexism allegations are completely toxic
The fix comes from outreach towards teen and preteen girls to convince them to consider stem. I’ve attended lectures on this
Maybe they realized that 71% of Silicon Valley being foreign-born H1b visa holders isn’t really the best image for ‘diversity’? https://slate.com/technology/2022/11/meta-facebook-layoffs-h... Bonus: almost half of Meta employees are from Asia. Reminds me of a screenshot of WPengines ‘diversity’ pledge on their website that proceeded to state nearly 80% of their staff were female. They changed it not long after.
> Bonus: almost half of Meta employees are from Asia. That seems low for a global company as around 60% of the global population is in Asia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_continents_and_contine...
Maybe they realized that 71% of Silicon Valley being foreign-born H1b visa holders isn’t really the best image for ‘diversity’? https://slate.com/technology/2022/11/meta-facebook-layoffs-h... Bonus: almost half of Meta employees are from Asia. Reminds me of a screenshot of WPengines ‘diversity’ pledge on their website that proceeded to state nearly 80% of their staff were female. They changed it not long after.
> Bonus: almost half of Meta employees are from Asia. That seems low for a global company as around 60% of the global population is in Asia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_continents_and_contine...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The 25% minorities seems trivial to hit with Asians/Indians and is probably naturally higher than that. But wow on the woman quota, I can’t imagine how easy they had to make those interviews to hit that number.
This is disgustingly sexist. Some of the brightest engineers I know are women. Get that attitude off this forum, it does not belong here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because the pool of male engineers is ~4-8x larger than female candidates, so hiring 50% women is intentionally hiring worse employees because of their genitals.
Isn't the interview process the same for each role regardless? How does the size of the pool matter?
Quoted post unavailable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is disgustingly sexist. Some of the brightest engineers I know are women. Get that attitude off this forum, it does not belong here.
Wrong. Realistically assuming a 4-8x larger pool of potential male engineers, as well as assuming equal average skill among males and females, hiring 50% women is what's disgustingly sexist. If 10 woman and 40 men apply and you hire 5 each based only on sex, you are sexually discriminating against the 35 other men some of whom are statistically highly likely to be better candidates than some of the 5 women hired. Get…
The men aren’t being “sexually discriminated” against, they’re being competed against and that threatens you. Grow up.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is that mind blowing?
Because it is not representative of the underlying demographics. There are vastly more men trained to work in the field (one representative datapoint: there's an 80/20 gender difference in computer science degrees). If you are hiring equal numbers of women and men from a talent pool which is 80% male then you are almost certainly illegally discriminating on the basis of a protected class.
Also say what you will about it, once a company/team gets known for having women other women will flock to it.
Edit: haha people downvoting for the reality that women like working with other women.
Good. Hiring based on race is... racist.
No, this is bad. Because the whole point of a diversity program is to reduce hiring based on race[0]. If a business is, say, 100% white men, it's extremely unlikely for this to have happened purely by chance. Like, "all the fast molecules in a can of air moving to one side" levels of impossible. If you want to argue that the problem is education or qualifications instead of overt refusal to hire minorities, that's on…
Affirmative action is indeed based on this fundamentally flawed premise. Such statistical bias occurs quite frequently, even in the absence of racism/discrimination. This is, among other things, evidenced by some minority groups being disproportionally successful in many societies. I strongly recommend Thomas Sowell's book on the topic: "Discrimination and Disparities".